validate_one_pager_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds 'SVG markup stays local', which is a behavioral trait not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It clarifies that the tool does not transmit data externally, which is valuable for privacy/security. It also states it returns a report, but the local note goes beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that lists the validation criteria and the expected output. It avoids unnecessary jargon and directly conveys the tool's purpose. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (validation against multiple criteria) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is validated, what is returned, and the local behavior. It does not detail the report format or the exact validation rules, but for a validation tool this is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. No output schema exists, so the mention of a compact report is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, filePath, is partially described by the phrase 'by file path' in the description, indicating it is the path to the SVG file. However, the schema has no description for this parameter, and the tool description does not clarify path format (absolute/relative), file existence requirements, or any constraints. This gives basic meaning but leaves room for ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: validating a generated editable CP SVG against specific criteria (palette/fonts/assets, embedded images, template content). The verb 'Validate' and resource 'editable CP SVG' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_one_pager or qa_one_pager_layout by focusing on file validation. The expected output (a compact report) is also mentioned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used after generation to check compliance, which is a clear use case. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the name and context make it obvious this is for validation rather than creation or layout QA. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the purpose is sufficiently self-evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.